The Rebuild Started...

[PuckMunchkin]

Can you direct me to where the rules are posted or can you list the rules for me please?

I am just guessing; But @Seattle Totems is likely referring to logical fallacies.

In reasoning to argue a claim, a fallacy is reasoning that is evaluated as logically incorrect and that undermines the logical validity of the argument and permits its recognition as unsound.

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

 

[Bleach Clean]

A few things that doesn't make sense in your argument. Since you are so focus on standings now. From 2010 to 2013 Jets/ALt finished 23 25 22 18 in the standings. 2014 to 2017 Jets finished 23 14 25 20. So if you actually look at the standings there isn't really not much of a difference at all. So I can use 2014 to 2017 as my argument. From that 4 year time frame they had one more pick than the Canucks. If you go back 5 years they average 8 picks a year. 7 years about 7.5 picks. They traded a lot picks for players. Jets rebuild was successful and they didn't use your road map.

When you say Jets is not rebuilding that doesn't make sense. Because you said Oilers did all the criteria of a rebuild except the 10 year time frame. You said it shouldn't take 10 years. Correction Oilers didn't start rebuilding until end of 2010. Oilers finished 21 19 24 from 2009 to 2007. Your definition if you finished around those rankings. You are not rebuilding. So Oilers did your road map from end of 2010 and they didnt have much success doing that. That proves if team are doing your way rebuilding is not always successful.

So now it comes down to either you accept my Jets rebuild example or my Oilers example rebuild. You can't have it both ways. Jets proves that they don't need to follow your map to be successful. Oilers proves that they followed your road map and were not successul

Long story short Hawks jets Oilers Pens Tampa Kings Leafs

Ask yourself this question did those teams Get better because they stacked picks. You can make that argument for Hawks and kings and not others. Either they didn't stacked picks or they did stacked picks but didn't get much out it. Without all those extra picks all those team would still be at the same level.

Pits. They didnt get anything stacking picks So how can use that argument that they becsme a good team because they stacked pick. Doesn't make sense right.

Do me a favour: Before I address your last post in full, I want you to give me your interpretation of my last post to you. Read it again, interpret it, and then write what you think I am trying to say.

One other thing: You're making a huge error in asserting that because picks do not work out, that it's not worth getting depth picks. If you understand that having more picks increases your probability to get players, then getting more picks is the primary mode. That's what PIT did. It doesn't matter that very little resulted from those depth picks. Select cases do not overturn the rule. Do you understand? In most cases, among all teams, getting more players from the draft usually means having more picks. Nothing you say changes anything in that regard.

 

[coolboarder]

To clarify your position: Picks are not the primary assets in a rebuild because they may not pan out. Is this correct?





Drafting is not always better than what?

Yes. Free agents, trading market is also a primary assets as they set the tone for the upcoming season. A right type of players acquired make a difference of a bottom-dwelling team or a middling pack or a cup contender. Drafting is a secondary assets considering their unknown commodity. You agree to a trade in hope of picking that specific player in a certain round but find out that other team also targeted that specific players in that specific round. Value of that pick turns into negative coming out of the trade. The best value is to hold your position with 7 rounds of the picks without ever traded for or given away unless you get a better players in return than the picks given away.

Drafting is not always the better than known assets. They are 18-years old and more of a generally unknown assets and you do not know exactly what they will bring as bodies do not mature fully until 19 or even 20 years old. Chance of a bust is higher if the body doesn't cooperate in term of physical mature. Bodies doesn't stop growing until 19 or 20. How you handle players at 20 are different than how you handled them at 18 and chance of failing this is greater. Chances of snagging up a superstar from the draft are at 0.06% at the best considering 31-teams league and 20-25 % of the superstars or NHLers coming out from any draft year with good players but not necessarily superstars.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Yes. Free agents, trading market is also a primary assets as they set the tone for the upcoming season. A right type of players acquired make a difference of a bottom-dwelling team or a middling pack or a cup contender. Drafting is a secondary assets considering their unknown commodity. You agree to a trade in hope of picking that specific player in a certain round but find out that other team also targeted that specific players in that specific round. Value of that pick turns into negative coming out of the trade. The best value is to hold your position with 7 rounds of the picks without ever traded for or given away unless you get a better players in return than the picks given away.

Drafting is not always the better than known assets. They are 18-years old and more of a generally unknown assets and you do not know exactly what they will bring as bodies do not mature fully until 19 or even 20 years old. Chance of a bust is higher if the body doesn't cooperate in term of physical mature. Bodies doesn't stop growing until 19 or 20. How you handle players at 20 are different than how you handled them at 18 and chance of failing this is greater. Chances of snagging up a superstar from the draft are at 0.06% at the best considering 31-teams league and 20-25 % of the superstars or NHLers coming out from any draft year with good players but not necessarily superstars.

I can't think of a contender team built through primarily free agent acquisitions. Can you give any examples of this?

Also.... Where are you getting this 19-20 body maturity?

 

[Canucks1096]

Do me a favour: Before I address your last post in full, I want you to give me your interpretation of my last post to you. Read it again, interpret it, and then write what you think I am trying to say.

One other thing: You're making a huge error in asserting that because picks do not work out, that it's not worth getting depth picks. If you understand that having more picks increases your probability to get players, then getting more picks is the primary mode. That's what PIT did. It doesn't matter that very little resulted from those depth picks. Select cases do not overturn the rule. Do you understand? In most cases, among all teams, getting more players from the draft usually means having more picks. Nothing you say changes anything in that regard.

But with the Oilers you looked at the results to determine it wasn't a proper rebuild. They did follow the road map you had getting picks. No sign big contracts and have room for kids. So now you are telling ne I shouldn't look at the results?

If we look at the process and not the results. How do we determine what rebuild actually works?

 

[Bleach Clean]

But with the Oilers you looked at the results to determine it wasn't a proper rebuild. They did follow the road map you had getting picks. No sign big contracts and have room for kids. So now you are telling ne I shouldn't look at the results?

If we look at the process and not the results. How do we determine what rebuild actually works?

We look at process and results. The result is that many teams have done wonky things that have still resulted in new core groups. This is what is confusing you. You identify a new core group as being the result of a properly executed rebuild, even when it can be rife with terrible management over a decade of futility. As long as a core group results, you're calling it a rebuild, and that's wrong.

As I've been saying throughout, there are a few things a team has to do to represent a rebuild. Not just one thing. I said the primary aspect is in favouring the draft. It's not the only aspect. I list these aspects out in full -- This is why I would like for you to provide your interpretation of my last post. I want to see if you understand the outline I have presented for a rebuild (among other things).

 

[Bleach Clean]

Yes. Free agents, trading market is also a primary assets as they set the tone for the upcoming season. A right type of players acquired make a difference of a bottom-dwelling team or a middling pack or a cup contender. Drafting is a secondary assets considering their unknown commodity. You agree to a trade in hope of picking that specific player in a certain round but find out that other team also targeted that specific players in that specific round. Value of that pick turns into negative coming out of the trade. The best value is to hold your position with 7 rounds of the picks without ever traded for or given away unless you get a better players in return than the picks given away.

Drafting is not always the better than known assets. They are 18-years old and more of a generally unknown assets and you do not know exactly what they will bring as bodies do not mature fully until 19 or even 20 years old. Chance of a bust is higher if the body doesn't cooperate in term of physical mature. Bodies doesn't stop growing until 19 or 20. How you handle players at 20 are different than how you handled them at 18 and chance of failing this is greater. Chances of snagging up a superstar from the draft are at 0.06% at the best considering 31-teams league and 20-25 % of the superstars or NHLers coming out from any draft year with good players but not necessarily superstars.

Where are you getting your numbers?

"Drafting is a secondary asset considering their unknown commodity? Free agents and the trading market are also primary assets."

Within the context of a rebuild, I don't think you will find agreement with the above statements. As unlikely as it is to pull an NHL player out of the draft, it is still the best context do it within. It provides the best opportunity at value. This player is on an ELC, Waiver ineligible, Offers the best value per dollar, RFA status until 27, cost-controlled etc... There are numerous benefits to drafting an NHL player that free agents and trades cannot provide.

This does not mean that drafting is not _always_ better than known assets. Outside of a rebuild, teams often trade draft picks to get players, as in when they are competitive. However, in a rebuild, the draft is paramount. Picks are the prime assets. Getting more is the main objective. That's what creates the pipeline.

We are only discussing the context of a rebuild.

 

[joelCAMEL]

I am just guessing; But @Seattle Totems is likely referring to logical fallacies.

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

Thanks for the clarification and that is good advice. Unfortunately, most posters commit them without knowing it. Similar to @Seattle Totems confusing advice and a rule. Ok, that's it for my hijack.

 

[sting101]

Haven't been following along but let me guess.............. were doing it wrong?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Thanks for the clarification and that is good advice. Unfortunately, most posters commit them without knowing it. Similar to @Seattle Totems confusing advice and a rule. Ok, that's it for my hijack.

Oh absolutely people commit them all the time unintentionally.

Haven't been following along but let me guess.............. were doing it wrong?

Huh?

 

[y2kcanucks]

Even if you do stockpile the picks, all of your picks could also failed miserably rendering your trades ability useless if you cannot make a right pick from that trade. Look at NYI drafting from 2012 when they focused on all defence in hoping that at least one of them would pan out. Also you failed to take this in account, the value of giving away veterans for picks that is not guaranteed to improve our own club. The only time I would give away veterans is if they refused to extend their contract at the deadlines. With veterans, you do know exactly what you are getting out from him even if you knew that he would cost us a few games. You never want any of your own rookies to cost us a few games and ruin his confidence while you are trying to develop him properly.

Yes, they could all fail (and if that's the case then you have to seriously revamp your scouting department), but that's how you rebuild. What you're suggesting is to build a team full of veterans; however, what you fail to understand is that good veterans aren't readily available. If we could go out there and just randomly add Nathan MacKinnon or Taylor Hall then great, go for it. But to get these guys you're going to have to give up something those teams want (if they're even available at all), and teams like the Canucks that build around veterans don't have anyone good that teams want. Nobody wants Del Zotto or Gagner. Nobody wants to give up anything good for Sutter. Eriksson has negative value. So at the end of the day you're stuck with a veteran group of players who aren't very good, who keep the team in the basement for several years.

You're suggesting we do exactly what the Leafs, Flames, and Oilers did for several years. I want to see the team get better and win the Cup. You prefer a veteran team that's at the bottom of the standings. To each their own I guess.

If you hope to get a superstar players from the draft, the highest percent seems to be the first round and rest of the rounds are in low percent of seeing one coming. That is why you stay put with your picks if you consider 50 contract limit to account as well. You cannot give away veterans for picks that might not see the ice at all unless you knew that he doesn't want to come back at all. This would be your only opportunity to get some kind of return. Let's say, you get 20-25% of superstars coming out of draft at any given year, and there's 31 teams in the league and your percent of snagging one from the draft are at 0.06%. That is a bad value of stockpiling the picks when you are giving away veterans. The best move is trading the veterans for the youth whose stock is on rise but not enough to make the team, examples such as Goldobin, or Dahlen. 19-years old or even 20 years old shows more than their junior years. You know what you are going to get out from both, a potential as proven in AHL but better chance of translating into the NHL once they figure out the defensive side of the game than any stockpiled draft picks ever will.

This is pure nonsense. Not only is your math horribly wrong, but the fact you fail to realize that you can get useful players outside of the first round is completely laughable.

Goldobin was not a player who's stock was on the rise. His stock was declining because he was an older prospect who wasn't good enough to make the team that drafted him. Those are awful trades. Just like the 2nd round pick for Vey was awful and didn't work out (and look...we could have drafted Brayden Point with that 2nd round pick). You're saying it was good to trade essentially Garrison for Vey instead of Garrison for a draft pick that could have led to Point.

Too often that 18-years old players showed promises pre-draft then regress in their +1 years and does not pan out at all. It is too risky of a draft to give away veterans just for 18-years old. Let's say, if the draft age is raised to 19 or even 20 years old then it all makes sense to stockpile picks because their bodies are at the near peak and more matured than the 18-years old bodies to make it easier to evaluate their potentials than the 18-years old players. Perfect example: Sam Bennett. The best move is to not move their draft position and stay put in order and take their picks accordingly.

That's why it's up to your scouting department to determine which players skill sets will translate to NHL success, and which won't.

If our prospects are better than Gagne and I would bet you that Gagne would be put in waivers or trade for any returns they could take. The management are looking for ways for their own prospects that they are better than the veterans they brought in and kick the veterans out. Unfortunately, our own prospects in recent years are not able to do that, therefore they didn't make the team. What makes you think that they would shake the world upside down if they couldn't even beat the recent free agent veterans? That is what Utica is for and to give them time to work their kinks out and become better than the veterans whether it's in-season with call-up or next training camp. Eventually, the cream comes to the top for the prospects. Once this happens, the team would be better for it. Then the team would be more equipped to handle the best of the best in the league in any hockey games. You want to be careful on how you handle the roster as you do not want too many holes in the line-up and finally fill it up 10 years later if your prospects don't pan out.

Nobody is going to want Sam Gagner, especially with his contract. You're suggesting that putting him on waivers and eating his $3.2M salary (would be $2.3M in the minors) is a smart business move? You're saying that's smart cap management?

The points you are making (summarized):

-draft picks are bad because those players could bust.
-stockpiling draft picks are bad because you don't know what you can get, and if you sign everyone you draft you'll run out of contract spots.
-stockpiling veterans are good because you know what you're getting (and if they're bad you know they're bad).
-Utica is so you can waste cap space on players who aren't good enough for the NHL.

I get you might not know much about how the league operates, or how successful teams rebuild, but I strongly urge you to look around the league at those successful teams and how those teams rebuilt. It might help.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Where are you getting your numbers?

"Drafting is a secondary asset considering their unknown commodity? Free agents and the trading market are also primary assets."

Within the context of a rebuild, I don't think you will find agreement with the above statements. As unlikely as it is to pull an NHL player out of the draft, it is still the best context do it within. It provides the best opportunity at value. This player is on an ELC, Waiver ineligible, Offers the best value per dollar, RFA status until 27, cost-controlled etc... There are numerous benefits to drafting an NHL player that free agents and trades cannot provide.

This does not mean that drafting is not _always_ better than known assets. Outside of a rebuild, teams often trade draft picks to get players, as in when they are competitive. However, in a rebuild, the draft is paramount. Picks are the prime assets. Getting more is the main objective. That's what creates the pipeline.

We are only discussing the context of a rebuild.

A part of me is starting to get legitimately concerned that this is a John Weisbrod or Trevor Linden burner account (couldn't be a Jim Benning burner account because, despite the way off base points his sentence structure is good). If the Canucks management actually think that way it does explain a lot.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Yes, they could all fail (and if that's the case then you have to seriously revamp your scouting department), but that's how you rebuild. What you're suggesting is to build a team full of veterans; however, what you fail to understand is that good veterans aren't readily available. If we could go out there and just randomly add Nathan MacKinnon or Taylor Hall then great, go for it. But to get these guys you're going to have to give up something those teams want (if they're even available at all), and teams like the Canucks that build around veterans don't have anyone good that teams want. Nobody wants Del Zotto or Gagner. Nobody wants to give up anything good for Sutter. Eriksson has negative value. So at the end of the day you're stuck with a veteran group of players who aren't very good, who keep the team in the basement for several years.

You're suggesting we do exactly what the Leafs, Flames, and Oilers did for several years. I want to see the team get better and win the Cup. You prefer a veteran team that's at the bottom of the standings. To each their own I guess.




This is pure nonsense. Not only is your math horribly wrong, but the fact you fail to realize that you can get useful players outside of the first round is completely laughable.

Goldobin was not a player who's stock was on the rise. His stock was declining because he was an older prospect who wasn't good enough to make the team that drafted him. Those are awful trades. Just like the 2nd round pick for Vey was awful and didn't work out (and look...we could have drafted Brayden Point with that 2nd round pick). You're saying it was good to trade essentially Garrison for Vey instead of Garrison for a draft pick that could have led to Point.



That's why it's up to your scouting department to determine which players skill sets will translate to NHL success, and which won't.



Nobody is going to want Sam Gagner, especially with his contract. You're suggesting that putting him on waivers and eating his $3.2M salary (would be $2.3M in the minors) is a smart business move? You're saying that's smart cap management?

The points you are making (summarized):

-draft picks are bad because those players could bust.
-stockpiling draft picks are bad because you don't know what you can get, and if you sign everyone you draft you'll run out of contract spots.
-stockpiling veterans are good because you know what you're getting (and if they're bad you know they're bad).
-Utica is so you can waste cap space on players who aren't good enough for the NHL.

I get you might not know much about how the league operates, or how successful teams rebuild, but I strongly urge you to look around the league at those successful teams and how those teams rebuilt. It might help.

Saying we could have drafted Brayden Point is a bit hindsightish don't you think..?..He was picked in the middle of the 3rd round,half of the teams in the NHL passed on him 3 times.

Why can't Sam Gagner be moved ?..There's no restriction on trading him (if we retain some of his salary)..Cap space is something we have plenty of..?..His contract is up in two years.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Saying we could have drafted Brayden Point is a bit hindsightish don't you think..?..He was picked in the middle of the 3rd round,half of the teams in the NHL passed on him 3 times.

Why can't Sam Gagner be moved ?..There's no restriction on trading him (if we retain some of his salary)..Cap space is something we have plenty of..?..His contract is up in two years.

Sure it's hindsight. But it's a counterpoint to his stupid point that it's almost impossible to get good player outside the first round and that it's better to trade picks for older prospects or veterans.

We would need to retain salary on Gagner. Shows just how bad his contract is, and how bad Benning is at his job considering he just signed him a year ago (on a team that's supposedly rebuilding).

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Sure it's hindsight. But it's a counterpoint to his stupid point that it's almost impossible to get good player outside the first round and that it's better to trade picks for older prospects or veterans.

We would need to retain salary on Gagner. Shows just how bad his contract is, and how bad Benning is at his job considering he just signed him a year ago (on a team that's supposedly rebuilding).

But why Brayden Point.?.For every Brayden Point,theres 29 other guys(whe were taken in that 3rd round) who will never be NHL players.

Gagners salary is like $600K over league average,its not a big contract..We have $12.8M of capspace available..I'm sure something can be figured out.

 

[RandV]

But why Brayden Point.?.For every Brayden Point,theres 29 other guys(whe were taken in that 3rd round) who will never be NHL players.

Nearly everyone making their own draft list had Brayden Point on it... although it's not like everyone was showing some heavy scouting savvyness here. As a 17 year old for his draft year he scored 72-36-55-91 in the WHL, a top 10 scoring level, but NHL scouts passed on him because he was tiny. This is exactly the type of prospect armchair scouts zero in on, and just happens to be one that turned out exceptionally well.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Haven't been following along but let me guess.............. were doing it wrong?

Yeah, I can't read NHL league standings either.

 

[Kryten]

Yeah, I can't read NHL league standings either.

Somehow it feels so much worse being the worst team in the league over the last 246 regular season games yet have picked 5th, 5th and 7th

 

[Hit the post]

Gagners salary is like $600K over league average

That wouldn't be bad *IF* Gagner was an average NHL player. He's an belch player on a bad team. The points he can put up doesn't offset how bad he is defensively.

 

[Bleach Clean]

A part of me is starting to get legitimately concerned that this is a John Weisbrod or Trevor Linden burner account (couldn't be a Jim Benning burner account because, despite the way off base points his sentence structure is good). If the Canucks management actually think that way it does explain a lot.

I'm being very patient here, I think. No attacks. Correct me if I'm wrong here @Canucks1096 and/or @coolboarder. I am genuinely taken aback that posters think this is a proper rebuild. In fact, I'm blown away. There are actually posters who think that there is no standard towards rebuilding. A GM can fail at near every managerial level. A team can flop around without any end in sight. And yet, if said GM drafts a good player with a low pick, all is right as rain... That level of acceptance is unfathomable to me.

Even Linden and Benning dancing around the word "rebuild" for years somehow doesn't give the game away?

In any event, there will be a new core group here and people will forget that this was even a debate.

 

[kanuck87]

I'm being very patient here, I think. No attacks. Correct me if I'm wrong here @Canucks1096 and/or @coolboarder. I am genuinely taken aback that posters think this is a proper rebuild. In fact, I'm blown away. There are actually posters who think that there is no standard towards rebuilding. A GM can fail at near every managerial level. A team can flop around without any end in sight. And yet, if said GM drafts a good player with a low pick, all is right as rain... That level of acceptance is unfathomable to me.

Even Linden and Benning dancing around the word "rebuild" for years somehow doesn't give the game away?

In any event, there will be a new core group here and people will forget that this was even a debate.

There's just no reason for a team like the Canucks to be as bad as they were the last three seasons unless you have an incompetent GM. Benning has been able to spend to the cap every season, a luxury not all teams have and he's been here long enough to now overhaul the roster to his liking. The end result is that this team has arguably been the worst team in the league over the past three seasons.

The naysayers can point to our blossoming prospect pool to defend Benning and yes, this is probably going to be the core that eventually gets us back to the playoffs, but the fact remains that any competent GM would have done a better job making this a competitive team over the past three seasons with the amount of resources being given.

 

[Trelane]

...If you understand that having more picks increases your probability to get players, then getting more picks is the primary mode. That's what PIT did. It doesn't matter that very little resulted from those depth picks. Select cases do not overturn the rule. Do you understand? In most cases, among all teams, getting more players from the draft usually means having more picks. Nothing you say changes anything in that regard.

Gods help me but I can’t lay off this train wreck of a thread.

What we have here is a failure to execute the Pittsburgh model. I could have sworn Burkie made mincemeat of that one long ago but here it is resurrected and some guys think it dope.

Again, getting more picks is NOT what PIT did. They averaged the usual allotted number all throughout and including 10 yrs prior to their first title. It was the same for Detroit, Washington and Carolina. Boston and Anaheim had less picks. Chicago and LA had more but only the Hawks got some good support players out of it. Following the 2019 draft the Nucks will have the same or more picks. They are very close now. Thinking the rebuilt hinges on some higher number is… out there.

Probability to get players??? NHLers or more ready pros is what comes back for those picks. Their probability of playing in the show is invariably higher. If you think this is offset by all that fabulous “upside” then, fine, but please enough with the probability already.


For the peanut gallery: No one is arguing the regime didn’t botch the attempt at playoffs part of their dual mandate, just that the prospect pool being as promising as any in memory has more relevance to the thread question.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Gods help me but I can’t lay off this train wreck of a thread.

What we have here is a failure to execute the Pittsburgh model. I could have sworn Burkie made mincemeat of that one long ago but here it is resurrected and some guys think it dope.

Again, getting more picks is NOT what PIT did. They averaged the usual allotted number all throughout and including 10 yrs prior to their first title. It was the same for Detroit, Washington and Carolina. Boston and Anaheim had less picks. Chicago and LA had more but only the Hawks got some good support players out of it. Following the 2019 draft the Nucks will have the same or more picks. They are very close now. Thinking the rebuilt hinges on some higher number is… out there.

Probability to get players??? NHLers or more ready pros is what comes back for those picks. Their probability of playing in the show is invariably higher. If you think this is offset by all that fabulous “upside” then, fine, but please enough with the probability already.


For the peanut gallery: No one is arguing the regime didn’t botch the attempt at playoffs part of their dual mandate, just that the prospect pool being as promising as any in memory has more relevance to the thread question.

At one point, EDM was considered to have the best prospect pool in the league, before McDavid. Did they rebuild properly during that stretch? If you say yes, then you should rightly be laughed out of this thread. If you say no, then you realize that the state of the pool does not equate to rebuilding properly.

Your facts are wrong, Trelane. PIT had a pick surplus during their rebuilding years. These years are from 2002 to 2006 (5 drafts). This is when the team was at the bottom of the standings. Why you would choose to substitute their competitive years for their rebuilding years is anyone's guess? In any case, during their _rebuilding_years_, they had 46 picks over a maximum of 41 assigned picks. This creates a 5 pick surplus over 5 drafts.

Probability in getting players from the draft. _From_the_draft_... You have already agreed that the best place to get core pieces is from the draft. Picks are required to have that happen. The more picks you have, the greater the probability in having that happen. This isn't hard. This is about probability of hit rates increasing the more chances you have to hit.

Trelane, you're really not making any points that haven't already been addressed.

 

[y2kcanucks]

But why Brayden Point.?.For every Brayden Point,theres 29 other guys(whe were taken in that 3rd round) who will never be NHL players.

Gagners salary is like $600K over league average,its not a big contract..We have $12.8M of capspace available..I'm sure something can be figured out.

You're clearly missing the point here (no pun intended). That poster is acting like acquiring draft picks is bad because you're not going to get a superstar outside the first round (his words). He's wrong, and that's one example. If Tampa took his advice and instead traded those picks, they wouldn't have Point.

Just because Gagner's contract is $600k over league average doesn't mean it's not a bad contract. I'm aware of the Canucks available cap space. What YOU keep ignoring is the fact that cap space is an asset and wasting cap space, even when you have a lot of it, on your own bad contracts is a terrible move 100% of the time. This is seriously something that's such a simple concept that a child could understand it. Stop being intentionally obtuse because I know you understand this concept.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Gods help me but I can’t lay off this train wreck of a thread.

What we have here is a failure to execute the Pittsburgh model. I could have sworn Burkie made mincemeat of that one long ago but here it is resurrected and some guys think it dope.

Again, getting more picks is NOT what PIT did. They averaged the usual allotted number all throughout and including 10 yrs prior to their first title. It was the same for Detroit, Washington and Carolina. Boston and Anaheim had less picks. Chicago and LA had more but only the Hawks got some good support players out of it. Following the 2019 draft the Nucks will have the same or more picks. They are very close now. Thinking the rebuilt hinges on some higher number is… out there.

When you make things up make sure it's not something that can't be easily verified. And also make sure you understand the difference between rebuilding and a team that's trying to add to their young core of players that are on an upswing:

Pittsburgh Penguins Draft History at hockeydb.com

From 2002-2004 (2005 is one you can't really count considering there weren't really trades heading into that draft due to the lockout) the Penguins had 34 draft picks. This is back when each draft had 9 allotted picks per team. That's 27 allotted picks. Pittsburgh had a draft pick surplus of 7 picks over 3 drafts which included an extra 2nd round pick and two extra 3rd round picks.

The reason you're casting such a wide net is quite dishonest. Just because they didn't win their first title until 2009 doesn't mean they weren't contenders in 2008 (when they traded away a ton of draft picks to load up). Nice try though.

Probability to get players??? NHLers or more ready pros is what comes back for those picks. Their probability of playing in the show is invariably higher. If you think this is offset by all that fabulous “upside” then, fine, but please enough with the probability already.


For the peanut gallery: No one is arguing the regime didn’t botch the attempt at playoffs part of their dual mandate, just that the prospect pool being as promising as any in memory has more relevance to the thread question.

And you're ignoring the very simple concept that any team that has been as bad as the Canucks have been will have a promising prospect pool. That's what happens when teams finish with as many high 1st round picks as the Canucks have had. That's how the draft works. This shouldn't need to be explained to you.